The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by sendler

Potholer54 is also very well versed on climate change.
.
https://youtu.be/52KLGqDSAjo
.
Unfortunately his new energy video lacks some important information. He states that wind electricicty in China is often curtailed. Implying that they have so much electricity that they can't even use it all. But the the problem is that the good wind resources are 1,000's of km from the cities that need the electricity and there is insufficient transmission capacity to carry that much power all the way across the country.
.
He also neglects to comprehend that electricity consumption in China when converted to mtce and viewed as a percentage of primary energy consumption, electricity is only 12% total energy consumtion.
.
https://china.lbl.gov/sites/default/...2017-final.pdf
.
So even if they were to replace all of electricity production with 5X more Nuclear, Wind, Solar, and storage than is currently online, and gained a 2X efficiency by converting all of the built out infrastucture thermal processes and machinery to electric, if that is even conceivable, they would have to increase their 5X of new clean electricity by another 4X.
.
20X their current clean energy build out. Plus 100's of TWh's of storage.
.
It's not so easy as he makes it sound.

Yeah, more green washing.

[All Darc]

Yes, it's too good to be true.
There was a debuking video about such batteries, but I couldn't find it again.

There was another battery, using radiactive element, promissing a life lasting of charge, but it was for very low power, and just a prototype proposal, for electronic hand devices. Is that possible in theory?

Edited... This was the video, I supose :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RbwOhM6PUk

But Mr Goodenough new proposal wasn't said to be about 10x more energy, but the solide lithium or solidium was said to be 2x times the energy density o lithium.
The 10x proposal was from the guy, from a company.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

5x to 10x the energy density of lithium batteries?
Nope I'm calling BS on that.

The most energy dense chemical storage know to man that isn't too weird and could be useable is to oxidize aluminum with oxygen from the air. It's about 4 or 5 times the energy density of lithium batteries.

So when someone one says "my battery is 3, 5 or 10 times more energy dense than current batteries" the laws of physics say you should be skeptical.

[All Darc]

Since teen I heard:

"Why do you think everyone (vast majority) it's wrong and just you are right?"

Originally Posted by Xist

I have not watched it yet and right now I am trying to figure out an assignment due almost two days ago.

Responsibilities are fun.

[oil pan 4]

Beta voltaic, alpha voltaic and nuclear thermo cells have been around since the 1950s.
There is nothing experimental about "nuclear batteries".
They can last a few decades to 100 years, all depends on the radioactive element used.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Potholer54 is also very well versed on climate change.
.
https://youtu.be/52KLGqDSAjo
.
Unfortunately his new energy video lacks some important information. He states that wind electricicty in China is often curtailed. Implying that they have so much electricity that they can't even use it all. But the the problem is that the good wind resources are 1,000's of km from the cities that need the electricity and there is insufficient transmission capacity to carry that much power all the way across the country.
.
He also neglects to comprehend that electricity consumption in China when converted to mtce and viewed as a percentage of primary energy consumption, electricity is only 12% total energy consumtion.
.
https://china.lbl.gov/sites/default/...2017-final.pdf
.
So even if they were to replace all of electricity production with 5X more Nuclear, Wind, Solar, and storage than is currently online, and gained a 2X efficiency by converting all of the built out infrastucture thermal processes and machinery to electric, if that is even conceivable, they would have to increase their 5X of new clean electricity by another 4X.
.
20X their current clean energy build out. Plus 100's of TWh's of storage.
.
It's not so easy as he makes it sound.

Looking at a map of the region,it looks like China has a lot of neighbors all around it,across many time zones,which could do a grid intertie,exporting power and visa versa.She's not an island.

[All Darc]

So, what is the limitation of it ?
The power discharge compared to volume or weight ?

If it was simple and safe it would be used in space station.

How it works? Nuclear power plants use nuclear elements heat to create steam and move turbine. But a battery...

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Beta voltaic, alpha voltaic and nuclear thermo cells have been around since the 1950s.
There is nothing experimental about "nuclear batteries".
They can last a few decades to 100 years, all depends on the radioactive element used.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by niky

Which is environmental regulation in a nutshell. Forcing companies to account for externalized costs.

Damn socialists. Always making us pick up our garbage.

Properly regulated capitalism results in trash being picked up. Socialism results in nothing being made to turn into trash.

[jcp123]

Thermal radioactive cells degrade over time as the nuclear fuel decays. The Voyager space probes use nuclear-thermal batteries. At this point they are still transmitting data, but the output is so low that they cannot run many of their instruments. Many other probes have used similar power sources.

The upside is that they do indeed last for decades, and their power output declines at a predictable rate.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

So solar power is more expensive because power just happens to be more expensive some places?
Ok let's pretend that's possible.

Then if it just happens to cost more, oh idk everywhere I can think of to check and some how I always only looked in the wrong place its a statical anomaly, so where is some place that relies heavily on solar power and it's cheaper than fossil fuel?
Where is the success story?
If what people claim is true and solar does cost half as much as fossil fuel then why don't we see that?

I'm reading 'FORDLANDIA' right now.It's about Henry Ford's captured rubber plantation project in the Amazon of Brazil,which began in 1928.It began shortly before the Wall Street Crash and Great Depression began.
They mention in passing,that the rubber plantation would not break even,and return any profit for 7-years(if everything went right),and that no capitalist would ever consider tying up capital for that long before profits could be realized.
In recent history,3-years was the metric for a return on investment with commercial loans.
Industrial/Commercial banking houses,like JP Morgan Chase and Chemical Bank,etc., may balk at any plan for investment which has a 'longer' payout,even if after breakeven,overhead trends towards zero cost,as in the case of renewables.
If so,investing may be left to less risk adverse venture capitalists looking at the longer game.
The concept of 'free' fuel would be appealing to some.That's what got me going in aerodynamics.There's more oil in the sky than in the ground.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Yeah Redpoint, I imagined everything connect to manage energy, how much charge people would got to the cars in a given day when production it's not right or when too much people decide to use the car. Even weather prediction would be used a warnings to next days.

But who would forbide, and how, the people who don't give a s... about rules. I always imagine thingS using my country as reference, since here most people don't respect rules. Systems must be fools proof and cretins proof.

In the USA utililties are already using market-based solutions, as in inverse-rate-based pricing structures,which hit abusers in the purse/wallet.
Everyone has access to so many energy units at a given price.If an individual exceeds that envelope,they're hit with a higher rate,as negative reinforcement for the 'bad' behavior.You can screw your neighbors out of energy and use the air and water for a sewer,but you'll pay for it.
A geometric inverted rate would make it so 'painful',price wise,that people simply could not afford to do it.
Authentic sociopaths would just be fed into the Soyant Green machine.